Power holders 'must minimize violent backlash'

Power holders 'must minimize violent backlash'

Violence continues to linger on as a major destabilizing
factor in the current political environment. Public affairs
commentator Wimar Witoelar reflects on this phenomenon.

JAKARTA (JP): The recent bombing of the Istiqlal Grand Mosque
in Central Jakarta is the latest incident of a form of terrorism
new to Indonesia. Whether or not former president Soeharto is
behind the terrorism, as some have speculated, is immaterial.

In fact, the latest news on the Istiqlal terrorists seems to
indicate the involvement of extremist groups. But the blast would
not have happened if this were not a time of transition.

Riots in Jakarta and Kupang, the widespread violence in Ambon,
Maluku and in Sambas, West Kalimantan, are all part of the
political scenario.

They were not spontaneous outbursts of ethnic, religious or
social tension. They are the violent end of a power structure
which arrived on the scene forcefully and ruled without mercy for
32 years. The leaders of the New Order regime, lacking a graceful
exit scenario, have launched a desperate gambit to prolong their
stay. This merely follows the examples of corrupt and bankrupt
regimes all over the world too myopic to prepare for political
transition.

When Soeharto was in office, his main achievement was to
preserve the balance of power, over which he reigned supreme.
Loyalties were sealed and opposition was obliterated by incisive
maneuvers using various instruments of power: security, position,
interests and money. Now, money is the main instrument to prolong
the end game. That is why no clearly defined person or groups can
be identified as the perpetrators of violence.

Terrorist bombings elsewhere in the world usually come with
claims, demands or statements from the perpetrators. Here,
terrorists have no motive except to create fear. No message is
necessary because the mission is to confuse and demoralize. The
term "provocateur" has become part of the political idiom of
Indonesia today, implying professionals creating public mayhem.

There has been so little containment of violence that we do
not know the position of the government. Cabinet leaders continue
to prance about their administrative territories; action on
violence is not on the agenda.

And no political force in Indonesia is powerful enough to
challenge Soeharto, even when he is out of office.

The fall of Soeharto's New Order regime was not caused by
political opposition, but by an implosion caused by external debt
and internal loss of inspiration. The regime's bankruptcy was
marked by economic collapse, treated only by political change and
Soeharto's resignation.

The nation went into free fall because President B.J. Habibie
could not fill the vacuum of authority. The dramatically labeled
"Reform Cabinet" could not satisfy the reform-seeking public.
Instead of serving as an interim government, the Habibie Cabinet
became the focal point of controversy and corruption. They
reformed politics just enough to allow new vested interest groups
fill the vacuum.

Instead of the Soeharto-inspired conglomerates you now have
groups who escape creditors by clinging closely to political
power. Cabinet ministers are aligning themselves to launch their
own political ambitions.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
naive to politics of greed, became unwitting accomplices of
master manipulators of public trust.

Habibie himself shows little interest in supporting, let alone
organizing, a smooth transition. A statesmanlike retreat could
actually ensure him a golden place in history much better than
his personal flights of ego.

Instead of meeting public needs, he is making promises.
Instead of cleaning up, he is allowing government factions to
help themselves to public assets.

Corrupt bankers, state enterprises and aid money have become
fund sources for the Habibie campaign. The Golkar Party and the
People's Rule Party (PDR) have become extremely defensive about
the origins of their logistical strength.

The majority of the people support the coming general
elections, but there is only lukewarm confidence in their impact.
For the general public, there is a vast distance between the
elections and an improvement in their lives.

With no clear standards to measure fairness, the outcome will
have a strong bearing on public acceptance. Polls and random
observations show the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle
(PDI Perjuangan), the National Mandate Party (PAN) and the
National Awakening Party (PKB) are major contenders. Golkar has
the organizational and financial edge, but lacks emotional
support. Should Golkar and pro-status quo elements win,
instability is likely to increase.

The legal system is weak but political awareness is very high.
The only good news in the reform picture is the free press, which
is fiercely defended by Minister of Information Muhammad Yunus.
"Better a free press without a nation than a nation without a
free press," is a Thomas Jefferson quote Yunus fondly recites.

In fact, the Ministry of Information is much more protective
of a free press than other groups close to political power. The
media are playing an active role in raising levels of critical
perceptions.

If the elections fail to satisfy the public, the specter of
public protest becomes very real once again. The May 21, 1998
Soeharto resignation is only an interim step in the quest for
total reform. Habibie and other leaders of the New Order
government must also go. No matter how much Golkar and the New
Order fall over backwards, history is not on their side.

We just hope the people in power realize they can make a
difference in minimizing the backlash of violence, by taking
positions alongside the people rather than with an unwanted
regime. For that, they will earn the gratitude of a weary public.

The writer is a political observer based in Jakarta.